In regards to the story concerning Mr. England on 11/25/08: Pandering to the lowest-common denominator in order to sell a few extra copies of your paper is, at best, base gossip and, at the worst, character assassination.
Your "story" should have been finished after the second sentence. It is a stretch to claim responsibility for the reporting of death, but what you do in the next 8-10 paragraphs is morally reprehensible. Readers of the Times-Union newspaper did not need a moment by moment narrative of the tragic events leading up to the death of Mr. England, or anyone. The decision to print or not print this sort of article is a qualitative decision that is the sole responsibility of the editor; you alone choose whether or not publish news or peddle gossip.
Again, as is so often the case, you have chosen the latter. You owe the Englands an apology. You owe your subscribers an apology. You owe the entire community, who deserve better, an apology for your pathetic, opportunistic, unnecessary and inappropriate article. I defy you to claim that the article that you published is anything but smut.
Caleb and Micah LeMasters
Winona Lake, via e-mail
Editors Note: All the information contained in the story the letter writer references is contained in a police report that is available for public inspection.
